the iranians have. and as the proof of the use becomes even more clear in the course of this debate, i think it is going to be very difficult for iran or russian to decide against all that evidence that there's something worth defending here. so this is the kind of calculation you have to make, but i'd measure that against the calculation of what happens if we don't respond. if we don't respond, we're going to be back here, asking you to respond to some greater confrontation, with greater potential for damage and danger, because somebody miscalculated as a result of believing the united states isn't good for what it says. and that will invite much greater danger for the american people, much greater risk for our armed forces, and conceivably much greater chances of a general kind of conflagration that we don't want to see. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time is up.

thank you, secretary. >> senator? >> let me thank you all of you for being here, but also thank you very much for junior service. and senator and mr. corker, thank you very much for arranging this hearing. it's very clear that the type of conduct that president assad has done in syria, the pattern of his actions creating a humanitarian crisis, and now the use of chemical weapons, the evidence that's been presented, it's clear that we have to respond and a military response is justified. so i support your efforts, and mr. secretary, the way that you have described it as what i think we need to do. we have to have a tailored mission, deterring the use of chemical weapons. we need to have it focused on that mission. it's got to be done in a way that protects civilians the best that we can. and it's got to be a very limited duration. but i just want to come back to

the point that the chairman raised, and your own comments. where you say, we should shut that door as tightly as possible, when dealing with putting our troops on the ground in syria. i've read the resolution you've presented to us. i think it's broader than what you have stated the president's intentions on the mission. and i understand that and i understand the president's strong desire to keep the mission very tight. and it certainly does not leave open -- it does not close to door on the introduction of troops. i've also heard your comments about the unexpected, something could happen. i would just point out that the president, as commander in chief, has the authority, the inherent authority to act in urgent situations, where time requires that action. and i would suggest, as you have come to congress for this authorization, if circumstances change and there's time to come to congress, you'll have the opportunity to come back to

congress and seek our participation. we are a separate branch of government, as you recall. so i just want to urge you in the strongest possible terms to work with our leadership to make a resolution that is as tight as we can make it to allow you to carry out the mission that you have defined here today, so that we can go back and tell the american people that we in congress are supporting your action, but are not leaving open the door the introduction of american troops into syria. i want to talk a little bit about the specific military operations, and i'm going to leave most of this for tomorrow in our discussions. but i just want general dempsey and secretary hagel to understand whether the mission is to degrade the weapons and deter the use of chemical

weapons. had you put into that equation the fact that, obviously, syria is aware that we are contemplating military action, and therefore may try to change the equation during this period of time, to make it more difficult for to us carry out that mission, has that been brought into your planning stages? >> yes, senator, it has. and you know, time works both ways. you recall about a week and a half ago, there was a significant leak of military planning that caused the regime to react. so time works both ways. we have some pretty significant intelligence capabilities and we continue to refine our targets. >> both of you have indicated your concern about american military involvement in syria, that it could draw us in, in a way that we do not want to be drawn into, an internal conflict. are you also putting into your plans ways to prevent that type

of drawing in of america into the internal conflict in syria? >> senator, we are. as i noted in my opening statement we have taken great care and muff time in looking at all, not only the options to present to the president, but the contingencies that may be of consequence, of the president selecting one of those options, including what you have just noted. it is imperfect, as i said, and i think everyone recognizes. there's always risk. we've tried to minimize that risk in every way we can, every presentation we've made to the president. the president has insisted on th that, collateral damage across the board. so, yes, we've taken a lot of time to focus exactly on your point. >> secretary kerry, we point out that if we don't act, we're

liable to use some friends. and i want to point out, we have a direct interest here. we not only have humanitarian reason to respond to the use of chemical weapons, we have direct american interests in that region, and we have americans that are in that region, that are at risk if additional chemicals are used. so i see a direct connection to u.s. interests. you say we might lose some friends if we don't act. why don't we have more participation in the u.s. military response in addition to just support. it seems to me, that america would be in the lead, but it does not seem like we have a growing list of countries that are actively joining us in the military operation. >> well, first of all, there is no definitive list at this point in time, because the president has not made the decision as to specifically which set of

choices he's going to operate on. secondly, as many countries as we could conceivably need to be able to be helpful in a limited operation have volunteered to be helpful. and they stand ready to take part in any specific operation. and we're very, very comfortable with that. but the bottom line, in many ways, remains that we're talking about very specific kinds of capacities that in some cases, only the united states of america possesses. and so, you know, that remains open. it's a process that will evolve as this debate evolves and as the president makes his decisions and the joint chiefs of staff and the military present him with the various options. and those will probably evolve as you mentioned. people may make adjustments in syria and i can assure the syrians that general dempsey and

his people were making adjustments as they go along. >> well, i would hope that we have stronger international participation. is there a consideration of a role for nato to play here, considering that one of nato's partners, turkey, is on the direct front line here on the use of chemical weapons? can we -- is that being considered? >> well, as you say, is it being considered? everything is being considered. and all of these things are being evaluated. discussions are taking place. i will be meeting on saturday with european ministers. i know this topic will come up. and most of them, they're all members of nato. or most of them are, not all of them. so we'll have some discussions when we're there. but at the moment, this is a limited operation, with the scope of support that the president makes a judgment that we have to have. we have already very broad, i

think we've had some 53 nations or countries and organizations have acknowledged that chemical weapons were used here and have condemned it, publicly. 31 nations have stated publicly that the assad regime is responsible and i think we're at about 34 countries have indicated if the allegations are true, that they would support some form of action against syria. so there's a very broad coalition that's growing, of people who believe that we ought to take action against syria, but the question is, you know, whether or not it makes sense for whatever number to be part of it is a decision that our military and the president have to make as we go along here. >> i'll reserve the rest of the questions for the closed session, thank. >> senator rubio?

>> gentleman will sit down or i'll have the officer remove you. police will make sure the committee is in order. >> senator rubio? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me begin by answering a fundamental question that we get asked a lot, which is why do we even care about what's happening in syria? and i want to make very clear my belief that reflects the police chief of many of the members of this committee. and that is what happens in syria is a vital national interest to the united states and to our national security for reasons that have already been outlined. the syrian relationship with iran is very significant. it's a key part of their ambitions to be the dominant regional power. in fact, the iranians love to brag that syria gives them a border with israel.

assad is an anti-american supporter of terrorism. he's a supporter of hezbollah and al qaeda in iraq. the same al qaeda in iraq that's responsible for the death and maiming of countless brave young men and women who served our country in uniform. it's also of interest to us because of the instability this is creating in syria. instability that's allowing portions of syria to become what afghanistan became before 9/11. the space for global jihadists from abroad to come train and fight and plan attacks for the future. and now added to that is this chemical attack, this undermines the post-world war ii world order, which basically said that these things are unacceptable. and allies that look at the united states and our capabilities of living up to our security promises is all at risk now as a result of all of this. so this is why syria, and what's happening in syria matters to our national interests, why it's so clearly tied to a critical national security interest to the united states. by the way, most, if not all of

this was true two years ago, when i joined other voice on this committee and in the senate and beyond, that advocated that at that time, when assad was on the ropes, the united states should engage in trying to identify moderate elements and equip them so that they become the predominant rebel force in syria and not others. but that didn't happen. instead, the choice was made to leap from behind. the choice was made to watch as this thing unfolded. others advocated that we should just mind our own business. and what we're seeing here now is proof and an example that when america ignores these problems, these problems don't ignore us. that we can ignore them, but eventually they grow and they come to visit us at our doorstep. secretary kerry, a moment ago, you said that one of the calculations that assad used when deciding to use chemical weapons, that the u.s. wouldn't do anything about it. i understand why he made that calculation, this is a horrible incident where hundreds of people died, but before this, hundreds of thousands of people died. including women who were raped,

they were going to this village, so of course he reached that call collation. this is a reminder of what happens when we ignore the world and we look inward and ignore these problems, they only get worse and more difficult to solve. this is the mess we have right now. we are left with options, all of which are less than ideal. and i want to walk through the three that have presented to us by different voices and ask specifically about the one that the president is considering. the first option is to decide to help syrians remove assad and replace a more and more moderate government. i think that's the ideal outcome. but it has its own complications. today the rebel forces on the ground are not just the moderate rebels, they're non-moderate rebels, there are jihadists that now control major portions of the country. and other parts of the country are intermingled with these rebel forces, creating a real prospect that after the fall of assad, a new civil war could be triggered, one that could involve sectarian violence, massacre of minorities, et cetera. this comes with its own set of complications. the other, which some voices

from advocated, is doing nothing. was that would guarantee the following outcome, an emboldened ass assad, emboldened iran, and it would send a message to the world that there is no red line they should fear crossing. so iran will move forward to nuclear weapons, north korea will get crazier, if that's possible. our allies in north korea may start to doubt its security arrangements with us, iran will move toward the bomb, which won't just be an iranian bomb, but a turkish bomb as well, and a saudi bomb and maybe an egyptian bomb. the third is what the president is asking us to consider a shot across the bow. a military strike of limited duration and scope that has three goals. goal number, hold assad accountable. goal number two, deter this behavior in the future. and goal number three, deter

their capacity to allow this in the future. the questions that i have, quite frankly, i'm a bit skeptical, that what the president is asking for will provide the support needed to achieve these objectives. and that these objectives are even realistic at this point. here's my first question. and i'll ask this of senator dempsey. the calculation that assad has made is that the reason why he's using these chemical weapons is because he's afraid if he doesn't, he can lose this war, be overthrown and kill. that's the calculation that he's made. he wants to beat the rebels. so my question is this. can we structure an attack that tips that calculation, where we'll basically decide that he would rather risk being overrun by rebels than risking a limited attack from the u.s. if he uses these chemical weapons? he has to decide, i'll use chemical weapons and take on a limited u.s. attack in the future or i'll risk being overrun by the rebels.

how are we going to unbalance that and relead him to calculat he's better off risking losing to the rebels. >> well, senator, i think maybe even more insidious than that, he's reached to point where he thinks of chemical weapons as just another weapon in his arsenal. that's the point that makes this so very dangerous. and i think that as i've provided advice on what targets may be appropriate, i certainly want to degrade his capabilities coming out of this. i want to come out of it stronger than we go into it. >> leads me to my second question. how confident are you and how confident can you express to this committee that you are, that we can, in fact, put in place a military plan that's limited in scope and duration, that can effectively degrade assad's capability to carry out future chemical attacks? >> i'm confident in the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and degrade. and it won't surprise you to know that we will have not only an additional target set, but

subsequent target sets, should they become necessary. fl and this question is probably of secretary kerry. and i think it was asked earlier, but i think it's important to elaborate on it. one of the concerns i've had and have heard others express, assad could take three, five, six days of strikes, maybe longer, maybe shorter, and emerge from that saying, i have faced down the united states and i have held on to power and survived, and at that point, be further emboldened, both domestically and perhaps even abroad. have we taken that into account? and i understand your argument that inaction would be worse, but have we taken into account what the implications could be of an assad that could weather a limited strike and what that could mean for the long-term prospects of the conflict? >> yes, we absolutely have. for certain we've taken that into account. he will weather -- i mean, the president's asking for a limited authority to degrade his current

capacity and to deter him from using it again. he is not asking for permission from the congress to go destroy the entire regime or to, you know, do a much more extensive kind of thing. that's not what he's asking. so he will be able to stand up and no doubt he'll try to claim that somehow this is, you know, something positive for him. but i think general dempsey has made it clear, and i think we believe deeply, as do others who are knowledgeable about this, in the region, that there is no way that it will, in fact, be beneficial for him. that it will not translate for him on the ground. that the defections that are taking place now and other things that will happen will further degrade his capacity to prosecute going forward and i want to emphasize something, i want to come back to it. because i don't want anybody misinterpreting this from

earlier. this authorization does not contemplate and should not have any allowance for any troop on the ground. i just want to make that absolutely clear. you know, what i was doing was hypothesizing about a potential, it might occur at some point in time, but not in this authorization, in no way be crystal clear. there's no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity for american troops on the ground within the authorization the president is asking for. and i don't want anybody in the media or elsewhere to misinterpret that coming out of here. as i said out of earlier, and i repeat it again now, that's important. >> thank you. and i can assure you, that will be in the resolution. >> good. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentleman, for your testimony. i agree that we should not turn our back on such a blatant violation of international norms

respect to the use of chemical weapons and that if we stand quietly by while a tyrant like assad uses chemical weapons on his own people, that we will be giving carte blanch to any dictator anywhere in the world to develop and use chemical weapons. i think the question now, as we've all said is, how do we respond specifically? how do we best send a message that it's completely unacceptable to develop, much less use these types of weapon, and how do we do that without inadvertently spreading the conflict beyond the borders of syria? that's really the question that we have today. and we've heard that we want to deter the future use of chemical weapons, but according to the president and to your testimony

today, we don't want to tip the scales on the ground. so how do we ensure that we can do that without spreading the conflict throughout the region and how do we hit assad hard enough, so that we deter his future use of chemical weapons, and yet don't effect the military outcome on the ground? >> general, do you want to ask -- address the sort of just military piece and i'll take the other piece? >> sure. i think the language about not using american military power to tip the scale is -- would be our direct action. in other words, this resolution is not asking for permission for the president to be able to use the united states armed forces to overthrow the regime. or on the other hand, back to the earlier questions about developing a moderate regime that has capabilities to be a stabilizing force inside of syria, that's the path.

our military action, in this case, is very focused on the chemical weapons, but we'll have the added benefit of degrading and we'll have also the added benefit of supporting the diplomatic track and with that, let me turn it over to the secretary. >> senator shaheen, the president has made it very, very clear that the policy of this administration, and sometimes people have sort of said, you know, questioned precisely what it is, and i'll tell you precisely what it is, the president is asking for the congress to take steps that will specifically deter and degrade assad's capacity to use chemical weapons. he is not asking the congress for authorization to become whole hog involved in syria's civil war to try to change the regime through military action. this is a targeted action to

deal with the problem of chemical weapons, but there is a separate track that the president had already committed the administration and the country to, which is that assad must go. that he has lost all moral authority or capacity to ever govern syria and that he is pursuing that, the president is pursuing that track by helping the opposition, by now having made the decision to lethally arm that opposition, by upgrading the efforts for the opposition to be able to fight the fight, notnited states, the opposition, and to be able to come to a negotiated settlement, was the president is convinced, as i think everybody is, that there is no military solution. that ultimately you want to get to geneva, you want a negotiated settlement, and under the terms of geneva 1, there is an

agreement which the russians have signed on to, which calls for a transition government to be created, with a mutual consent of the current regime and the opposition and that transition government will wl h establish the rules of the road for the syrian people to choose their new government. there is no way possible that by mutual consent, assad is going to be part of that future. the russians have agreed that that is, in fact, geneva 1, and the purpose of the geneva 2 meeting is to implement geneva 1. it's complicated, obviously. how do you get there? and that's part of their struggle. but the president is convinced that as the support to the opposition increases, there is much greater likelihood that you will wind up ultimately with a negotiated settlement. the alternative is that you stand back and do nothing and syria, in fact, implodes and becomes an enclave state.

there are huge, ungoverned spaces. al nusra, al qaeda, hezbollah, others, become more of a threat to our friends in the region and the region becomes much more of a conflagration. >> thank you, mr. secretary. secretary hagel and general dempsey, you made a number of statements throughout the spring, cautioning against intervention in the conflict in syria. why do you feel at this point that it's appropriate for us to take action? what's changed? >> senator, thank you. i'll let general dempsey respond for himself. well, first, very clear intelligence and evidence that that the assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people. so we are dealing with a new set of realities, based on facts.

and i think it is, at least my opinion. that that needs to be addressed, that needs to be dealt with. for the reasons i have noted, i have said in public and also addressed in my statement, i think in what secretary kerry and general dempsey has said, and obviously what the president has said. so that's the most specific reason. the dynamics have changed. one additional point in regard to your question on this, as to your previous question. if, in fact, the president is given the authorization from congress to go forward, and as he's already said, he believes he has within his constitutional power, as commander in chief, to act as well. and he's given his reasons, which we all support, why he came to the congress, there are parallel actions that would work

along with whatever action the president would take. opposition strength, which secretary kerry has noted. second, defections within the syrian government and military, as secretary kerry has noted. other intelligence, other consequences. and this is about getting to an end game. that end game is a diplomatic settlement. it is driving the toward, what we believe, the president believes, is the only way out of this, if for no other reason, than what secretary kerry has noted. we do not want to see the country of syria disintegrate, result in ungoverned space, which i think the consequences would be devastating for our partners and for our allies, the entire middle east. then we would all have to respond in some way. so i just add that on to answer

your last question. >> chairman, i'll make it brief. but in response to your question about the past year, over the past year, we've provided a full range of options. and my advice on those options was based on my assessment of their linkage to our national security interests and whether they could be effective. on this issue that is the use of chemical weapons, i find a clear linkage to our national security interests, and we will find a way to make our use of force effective. >> thank you, all. >> senator johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to reconcile, i guess, the two tracts of goals we've got going on here. military action and negotiated settleme settlement. secretary hagel, you said we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria. isn't that exactly what we're doing? why aren't we trying to resolve

that? >> i was referring in my statement, to the authorization to use military force. that, specifically, is not why we are come to the congress, why the president asked for the congress' support. as he said, the authorization is for a very focus and specific military action. z >> but our stated goal is to remove assad. why wouldn't we use this opportunity to move toward that goal? >> well, that is one option. if those options would range from an invasion or a lot of military options on the table, what the president has said what this authorization is about is a limited authorization for a limited exercise. the goal of removing assad from office, as the president has stated, is still the policy of this administration. >> general dempsey, how

confident are you that you can calibrate, tailor, fine tune military action that doesn't have spillover effects? so we keep it to the limited stated goal of, i guess, degrading and deteriorating? >> the task was to do just that, to deter and degrade. and to be limited and focussed in scope and duration. that's the task i've been given. >> how can you calibrate that? >> well, we can calibrate it on our side. there is always the risk of escalation on the other, but they have significantly limited capabilities to do so. and most of the intelligence informs us -- we can talk about that in the closed session. >> but what planning is being undertaken right now in case this does spin out of control? we were talking about potential for boots on the ground. secretary kerry, i'm very glad to hear you're bringing into the equation what i think is our number one national security interest, and that is those chemical weapons falling in the hands of al qaeda elements, or

possibly even hezbollah. if you have a very limited resolution here, how do we know that we will prevent that from happening? >> senator johnson, this is -- this moment in time, and as the president has said, he is asking for a limited military response, recognizing that neither he nor most of america want to be dragged into a civil war in syria. >> but our goal is to get rid of assad. >> our goal is to help the opposition. there are lots of -- i mean, you have to look, overall, the president and, i think, all of us agree, i mean, can you imagine assad running syria? can you imagine this man -- >> again, i'm trying to reconcile why, if we're going to go in there militarily, if we're

going to strike, why wouldn't we try to do some kind of knockout punch? is it because we simply have no faith that there's anybody on the ground, the rebels, to take -- >> no, no, absolutely -- >> or is it not ready for a regime change. is that the problem? >> no, senator, that's not the reason. the reason is that the president is listening to the american people and has made a politics decision in addition that that is not something that the united states of america needs to engage in or ought to engage in. that is a much broader operation. >> but it's the same goal. >> it is. it is, senator. is the congress of the united states ready to pay for 30 days of 30,000 air strikes to take out, and is there a legal justification for doing that? and you can run through a whole series of different questions here that are very serious about what you're talking about. >> what do we know about the opposition? i mean, have we been tracking them for the last two areas? i mean, it seems more of an

impression i have as opposed to any direct knowledge. but it seems like maybe the opposition was maybe more western leading, more modern, more democratic, as time has gone by, it's degraded and become more infiltrated by al qaeda. is that basically true or -- >> no, that is actually basically not true. it's basically incorrect. the opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the bre breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to a democratic progress and to an all-inclusive minority-protecting constitution that will be broad-based and secular with respect to the future of syria. >> secretary hagel -- >> let me just finish one other important about the opposition. it's my understanding, because i talked to the president of the opposition yesterday. he's in germany now. he's meeting with the german parliament. he's coming to great britain. he will be meeting with the parliament in great britain and he's prepared to come here as

soon as those meetings are over and can meet with you and you'll have the opportunity t talk to president jarver and meet the opposition and have a better sense of who they are. >> appreciate that. secretary hagel, do you have a feel for the number of the members of the opposition? how large is their force? >> i don't know the numbers. our intelligence communities have estimates of those numbers, but i think as secretary kerry said, the momentum has shifted in the opinion of our intelligence community and our others who are close to the situation -- >> i'm kind of a numbers guy. general dempsey, do you know the force strength of the rebel forces? >> i don't have them commitmented to memory. >> but we have them? >> yeah. >> do you have an idea of how many would be moderate versus members of al qaeda? >> i have seen documents that lay that out. >> how do we know that hezbollah

that they already don't have access to chemical weapons? do we have any feel for that at all? >> i think we need to talk about that in our classified session. but let me just say to you that in terms of the opposition numbers, you see ranges up to 80, 90,000, 100,000 in total opposition. you see ranges from -- well, i don't want to go into all the number. but in the tens of thousands in the number of operative combatants. i've seen some recent data on the numbers of the extremists. they're actually lower than former expectations. i would also say to you, syria, historically, has been secular. and the vast majority of syrians i believe want to remain secular. it's our judgment that -- and the judgment of our good friends who actually know a lot of this,

in many ways, better than we do, because it's their region, their neighborhood. i'm talking about the saudis, the emirateis, the qatars, the turks, the jordanians, they all believe if you could have a fairly rapid transition, the secular component of syria will reemerge and you will isolate -- >> that tends to argue for a most robust response. final question. you say this is the world's red line. i agree. so in the intervening time period before we potentially act here, how much additional countries will be supportive of this action? what is your goal? what do we have right now and what is your goal? >> our goal is to have a broad of coalition of support of what we might do is as possible. and we're working that right now. but the military and the president are going to have to decide how many they actually want to have take part in the action. as i said, we already have more

partner ready to do something kinetic than the military feels, under this particular operation, we need to effect that. now, obviously, we want them to participate, because we want it to be a broad coalition, but the final numbers will have to be decided by the president and by the specific operation that he defines, together with you in the authorization. >> i look forward to tomorrow's briefing. thanks. >> senator? >> i would like to thank chairmans kerry and hagel and dempsey for your service to your nation and your testimony in front of us today. i think the commitment of american's military strength is one of the most important issues that we will ever debate in this congress and i'm grateful for the opportunity to have this conversation today, as secretary kerry said, in his opening testimony, not just what we decide, but how we decide it, will send a very important message around the world, that this congress can still function in a nonpartisan way, in the

interest of the people of the united states. as i've listened in recent days, i think they reflect a nation that is weary of war and wary of inadvertently repeating some of the challenges of our engagement in iraq. i've heard specific and pointed concerns that we not rush into action, based on uneven or inaccurate intelligence. that we not be drawn into a civil war we don't fully understand or where we can't quite discern the good guys from the bad guys. and more than anything, that we not commit to an open-ended participation. a direct military invasion in an occupation of a country in a part of the world that is often confounding and is full of competing priorities. having reviewed the intelligence this morning in a classified briefing, having participated in a number of briefings from you and from folks leading in your agencies and departments, i am persuaded that this is not that circumstance. that the intelligence is solid. that we have, in this distance,

a clear violation of a long-standing global red line against the use of chemical weapons. as you've stated, something embedded in america's statutes and our treaty commitments, something that is a truly global standard. my view, as i've watched both the images on tv presented at the beginning of this hearing, is that we face a real risk here, if we do not act. that this is an instance where one of the world's worst dictators has steadily ratcheted up an ascending kcrescendo of death in his own nation. he began with thugs and police, graduated to snipers, killing innocent civilians. used helicopters and jet fighters against his own people, has deployed cluster bombs and scud missiles. i think over the last two years, there is no doubt that bashar al assad and his regime is willing

to go to any lengths to stay in power. so the challenge now for those of us who seek an appropriate path forward is to make sure that we craft an authorization for the use of military force that responds to america's legitimate concerns, but still allows the administration to act in a decisive and timely way to both deter and punish the assad regime for what they've done. so i have a few questions for you if i might. first to general dempsey. and i know we've spoken to this before, was i think it is worth repeating. how do we strike the right balance between military action that is too insignificant to actually effectively deter or degrade assad's capabilities and one that is so decisive and overwhelming that it reaches beyond the scope of an authorization and becomes actually a regime change effort. >> well, senator, i won't recommend an option or a set of targets that won't effectively

deter and degrade. that's the task that i've been given. and now we'll continue to refine that, not just based on intelligence, but based on the resolution that comes out of this committee. >> and could you, in your view, accomplish that mission with an authorization that is limited in scope, in terms of a time duration, and in terms of not introducing u.s. troops on the ground? >> well, it won't surprise you to know that as the military leader responsible for this, the more -- the broader the resolution, the less limiting, the better off i will be in crafting a set of options, but i completely defer to the secretary of state to give me what i need to do then. >> then to secretary kerry, because our goal here is to not pass or even consider an authorization that is so narrow that it prevents any effective message to be sent here, as you said,ic in a compelling way, our actions are not just meant to

deter assad, but send a strong message to pyongyang and strong non-state actors around the world who might use chemical weapons or seek chemical weapons? how do we craft an authorization and take actions that are effective in deterring other countries that are watching our decisiveness and action in this instance? >> i think the language that the administration submitted with respect to the military action necessary to degrade and deter and prevent the use of chemical weapons, specifically, is very targeted. but as i've said tefrl times now and will repeat again, i know the administration has zero intention of putting troops on the ground, and within the confines of this authorization, i'm confident would have zero problem in including some kind of prohibition there, if that makes you comfortable. i would not urge an excessively pinpointed congressionally

mandated set of targets, and i think in the course of the classified briefings, the intelligence community and the military community will make it very clear to you why that's not advisable. and i think they have to have some -- the general needs some latitude here to be able to make sure he can accomplish his task. but i think the broad confines and constraints of this particular operation are not hard for us to arrive at in agreement and i'm confident we'll do it very quickly. >> thank you. one of my other concerns, mr. secretary, is the flood of refugees and their impact on the region. in a visit in january to a syrian refugee camp in jordan, i was moved both by the human taper situation they're facing, and by the very real impact that this is having on our regional allies, on jordan, on turkey, on the destabilizing impact on lebanon and of course the real impact it's potentially going to have on our close ally, israel. i was encouraged to hear there

was successful missile defense system test earlier today, as secretary, what steps are we taking to ensure that our allies in the immediate area of turkey and jordan and israel are able to defend themselves from a potential response by the assad regime? >> well, senator, first, jordan, you know we have patriot missile defense batteries in jordan. we also are working very closely with the israelis. they have a very sophisticated missile defense system. we are in constant communication with all the allies in the region. and as you may know, general dempsey was just in jordan for a commander's meeting, which included all the senior military from the neighboring countries and our partners so we are closely connected with and assisting our allies on this and

other issues. >> thank you. last question, secretary kerry, if i might. i am interested in our having a follow-on conversation about how this specific strike and this specific authorization that you're seeking can also lead to a broader strategy, a strategy for support and engagement with the opposition that will lead to the diplomatic resolution of the syrian civil war that you've spoken about repeatedly. i don't think these are mutually exclusive. i do think it's possible for us to take action that reinforces a global red line against chemical weapons use, but to still continue to strengthen and broaden our engagement with the opposition, in a way that moves towards a post-assad syria that is sustainable and secure. and i look forward to your input with us on your next hearing. >> senator, i look forward to it to. i would like to get the whole committee, for them to come down to the department, and we can have this discussion in that confine, as a committee, also.

and i think that might be helpful, in addition to what we do in the classified briefing tomorrow. >> thank you. mr. chairman, if you want to do that, i'm happy to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for your testimony. and i want to thank you, particularly the state department, for making information available with regard to unclassifying certain information and also for the classified hearings that have taken place with regard to the chemical attack. i think that one would have to suspend disbelief, as you mentioned, to assume that the regime was not in charge of this. secretary kerry, in your initial testimony, you ask us to ask ourselves what assad's calculation would be if we failed the to act. i think that's an appropriate question. but i think it is appropriate for us to ask you or the administration, what is the

calculation of assad right now, when rather than after we have proof that he did engage in what he engaged in, then we're waiting for a congressional authorization. i think one would have to suspend disbelief to assume that we wouldn't be better off attacking those targets right now or a week ago than waiting three weeks for congress to take action. and just drawing some parallel to the conflict in libya, i think the president's statement was before we went ahead and engaged in combat there, or at least along with nato, the president said, i refused to wait for the image of slaughter and mass graves to take action. and did so without congressional authorization, under the war powers resolution, we had some dispute when he came back, but initially, we went ahead.

here, we have evidence that chemical weapons were used, and how can we assure or tell our constituents that this isn't political, when we come, when you come, when the administration comes to the congress, to ask for authorization, to take action that the president clearly has said he has authority to take. >> well, senate flake, it's somewhat surprising to me, that a member of congress, particularly one of the foreign relations committee, is going to question the president, fulfill ing the vision of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution and dividing power and foreign policy, to have the president to come here in honor of the original intent of the founding fathers in ways that do

not do anything to detract from the mission itself. general dempsey will tell you that he advised the president of the united states that not only was there not a deterioration in this mission by waiting, there might even be some advantages. so, in fact, we're not losing anything by waiting, and i personally believe there are advantages. because we have time to work with our friends in the international community, because we have time to make the case to the american people, and share with them the evidence that we have shared with you in the last days. because we have an opportunity to be able to build greater support. and as the general said, we can adjust to any changes or shifts that they make in that time. this does not in any way deteriorate the fundamental

mission of degrading and deterring the use of chemical weapons. now, if at any moment assad were foolish enough to believe that this period of waiting was somehow a invitation to do more of his criminal activity that the president of the united states and you will all speed up your process and/or the president would respond immediately. so this is working. there are defections taking place. there's great uncertainty in syria. we are building support, a great understanding, and i would far rather be playing our hand than his at this point in time. so i don't think we're losing anything. i think the president made a courageous decision to take the time, to build the strength that makes america stronger by acting in unity with the united states

congress. >> if i may, i can certainly understand, if that is a secondary goal or the primary goal that will, in this intervening time, it causes our allies to get with us, it causes russia to put the pressure on, maybe the assad regime to get back to the table, peace talks, something like that, that's great. but purely in terms of military strablg, and i don't have a military background, but i would have to suspend disbelief, and i think all of us would, to assume thatwear better off in a couple of weeks, doing what we're planning to do, what we will authorization the administration to do. general dempsey, is there evidence that the assad regime is right now moving some of the targets that can be moved or surrounding targets with civilians or others to make it more difficult to give effect to our strategy? >> thanks, senator. first, i do want to, for interest of clarity here, what i actually said to the president is the following. the military resources we have

in place can remain in place and when you ask us to strike, we will make those strikes effective. in other sessions in the principles committee, not with the president, the president we talked about some targeting becomie ining more accessible te were before. but there is evidence that the regime is acting not only to the delay, but also they were reacting before that to the very unfortunate leak of military planning. so this is a very dynamic situation. >> secretary hagel, you seem eager to jump in? >> i was just going to add something that you added, senator, and that is the international community. in addition to what the president has already noted, a nation is always strong when he gets the congress and the american people with him, to begin with. but also, the international

community, as members of the international community with us on this, i think the president feels pretty strongly would be also an important part of whatever decision he might make and it doesn't end with whatever military option the president decides to go, as we've all heard. that's all the more important we would want the international community with us. >> secretary kerry, what will happen if the congress says no and does not authorize this strike or this use of force? what will the president do? >> well, i can't tell you what the president is going to do, because he hasn't told me, but the president, as as you know, retains the authority, always has the authority, had the authority to strike before coming to congress and that doesn't change. but i'll tell you what will happen, where it matters, in

pyongyang, in tehran, in damascus, folks are stand up and celebrate, and in a lot of other capitals, in parts of the world, people will scratch their heads, and sign a sort of condolence for the loss of america's willingness to stand up and make itself felt where it makes a difference to the world. i think it would be an enormous setback to america's capacity and to our vision in the world, and certainly to the role of leadership, that we play. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator durbin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. on saturday, i was standing with a group of friends, watching the television screen with the announcement that any minute the president would make a statement

and i turned to them and said, i bet the missiles were launch and shot out of hours ago and we'll hear about it now. and to my surprise, of course, the president came forward and said, i have that authority, i've made that decision. but i'm going to respect our constitutional democracy and give the congress, that is, the america people through congress, a voice in this decision. from where i was standing, that was good news. because for as long as i have been in congress, house and senate, i have argued about that congressional responsibility. some presidents have respected it, some have not. most of the time congress, in writing or in speeches, insists on being respected and by being given this authority, and then starts shaking when it's given. because it calls on us to be part of historic life-and-death decisions. it's one of the toughest calls i'll ever make as members of

congress, but i respect the president for respecting congress and giving us that responsibility. and i think the turnout today, in midst of a break, is an indication that we're taking this seriously and solemnly. i'll also note to secretary kerry and secretary hagel, we all served together some 12 years ago, and faced similar awesome, historic decisions, related to iraq and afghanistan. we saw those differently in some respects, but i voted against the iraqi resolution and going to war in that country and felt that the events that transpired afterwards gave me some justification for my vote. but i voted for the war in afghanistan, believing that it was a clear response to 9/11. we were going after those responsible for killing 3,000 innocent americans and we were going to make them pay a price.

i still believe that was the right thing to do. but i didn't know at the time that i voted for that authorization for the use of military force, i was voting for the longest war in the history of the united states and an authorization to several presidents to do things that no one ever could have envisioned at that moment in history. so secretary kerry and secretary hagel, i take this very seriously. i understand this president and i understand his values, uh but take it very seriously that the language be as precise as possible when it comes to this question of expanding this mission into something much larger, something that would engage us in a new level of warfare or a new level for this president or a future president. so i hope that we could have your word and assurance that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to craft this in a way that carefully achieves our goal, but does not expand

authority anywhere beyond what is necessary. >> senator, thank you. very important statement, and you not only have any word that it will not do that, but we will work with you very, very close we, with the white house, in shaping this resolution. there's no hidden agenda. there's no subterfuge. there's no surrogate strategy here. there's one objective and that objective is to make sure we live up to our obligations of upholding the norm with respect to international behavior on the use of chemical weapons and that is what the president is seeking in this authorization. >> let me speak to the issue of chemical weapons. i don't know if general dempsey or secretary hagel or perhaps secretariy kerry is the appropriate person. the french have done an assessment of what they believe

the syrians have in terms of their chemical weapons arsenal. general dempsey, are you familiar with? >> i'm not familiar with the french assessment. i'm familiar with our own. >> well, let me ask, we have a copy of it here and it's been published and we have talked a lot about sarin gas and other nerve agents. and what we hear from this report, andi ask you if it's close to what your assessment is, the syrians have more than 1,000 tons of chemical agents and precursor chemicals, sever hundred tons of sarin, representing the bulk of their arsenal. it's also been speculated that they have the missile capability of delivering these chemical weapons in israel, portions of jordan, turkey, iraq, and beyond. what is your assessment of their potential when it comes to the delivery and their capacity when it comes to the amount of

chemical agents they have available? >> our assessment, very closely, matches the french assessment. >> i guess my question to you, mr. secretary, secretary kerry, is in light of the vulnerability of these countries, what has been the response of the arab and muslim world to this? you've listed four or five who have stepped forward to say they support our efforts. it would seem that if this danger in the region is so profound, that we would have even greater support. >> senator, i think this is something i'd be happier discussing in greater detail with you in the closed session. there are obviously some countries for whom public statements are more complicated than others. and i think we should talk about that at the other session. >> fair enough. general dempsey, we saw these photographs earlier, these heartbreaking photographs. page 3